What is the translation of " REGTP " in Danish?

• regtp

Examples of using Regtp in English and their translations into Danish

That increase was authorised by RegTP by decision of 13 March 2002.
RegTP godkendte denne forhøjelse ved afgørelse af 13. marts 2002.

Even if RegTP had infringed a Community rule and even if the Commission could have initiated proceedings.
Selv om RegTP havde overtrådt en fællesskabsbestemmelse, og selv om Kommissionen kunne have indledt en.

Subsequently, by its price cap decision of 21 December 2001, RegTP itself directly organised the progressive price restructuring envisaged.
Dernæst gennemførte RegTP ved price cap-afgørelse af 21. december 2001 selv den planlagte afgiftsomlægning direkte.

RegTP follows a similar reasoning in its decisions of 8 February 1999, 30 March 2001, 21 December 2001 and 11 April 2002.
RegTP fulgte et tilsvarende ræsonnement i sine afgørelser af 8. februar 1999, 30. marts 2001, 21. december 2001 og 11. april 2002.

However, it must be held that, within that framework, the applicant was able to adjust its prices after obtaining the prior authorisation of RegTP.
Inden for disse rammer kunne sagsøgeren imidlertid ændre sine priser efter at havde indhentet forhåndsgodkendelse fra RegTP.

In its decision of 25 January 2002, RegTP closed the proceeding initiated against the applicant concerning predatory pricing in relation to ADSL.
RegTP afsluttede ved sin afgørelse af 25. januar 2002 den sag, der var rejst mod sagsøgeren om underbudspriser for ADSL.

The 10% reduction in the basic amount of the fine to take account of the regulation of charges by RegTP is therefore insufficient.
Den nedsættelse af bødens grundbeløb med 10%, som er indrømmet for at tage hensyn til, at afgifterne reguleres af RegTP, er derfor utilstrækkelig.

In that context, RegTP checks whether the wholesale access charges proposed by the applicant satisfy the requirements laid down by Paragraph 24 of the TKG.
RegTP undersøger i den forbindelse, om de engrospriser, sagsøgeren har ansøgt om, opfylder betingelserne i§ 24 i TKG.

In addition, in its judgment of 16 January 2002, the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf held that responsibility for the charges set by RegTP could not be attributed to the applicant.
Endvidere fandt Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf i sin dom af 16. januar 2002, at sagsøgeren ikke var ansvarlig for de af RegTP fastsatte afgifter.

The applicant observes that RegTP itself has concluded on several occasions since 1998 that there is no margin squeeze to the detriment of the applicant's competitors.
Siden 1998 har RegTP selv flere gange bekræftet, at der ikke forekom prispres til skade for sagsøgerens konkurrenter.

In addition, it noted that the German legal framework did not preclude RegTP from authorising proposed charges which are contrary to Article 82 EC.
Desuden udtalte Bundesgerichthof, at de tyske retsforskrifter ikke var til hinder for, at RegTP godkendte afgifter, hvorom der var ansøgt, og som var i strid med artikel 82 EF.

Deutsche Telekom informed RegTP of its new rates for the termination of calls from mobile telephones. These were considerably lower than the previous rates.
Deutsche Telekom har underrettet RegTP om sine nye takster for videresendelse af opkald fra mobiltelefoner, som ligger betydeligt under de tidligere.

The applicant claims that the basic component of the charge, namely the price of the basic subscription(analogue or ISDN connection), requires the prior authorisation of RegTP.
Afgifternes grundelement, nemlig prisen for basistilslutningen(analog tilslutning eller ISDN-tilslut-ning), kræver forudgående godkendelse fra RegTP.

According to the telecommunications and post regulator(RegTP), total turnover in telecommunications services in Germany in 2002 was around EUR 61 billion.
Ifølge oplysninger fra reguleringsmyndighederne for telekommunikation og postvæsen("RegTP") lå den samlede omsætning med teletjenester i Tyskland i 2002 på omkring 61 mia. EUR.

RegTP should therefore refuse a retail price adjustment sought by the applicant if the prices contravene Article 82 EC, particularly because of an anticompetitive margin squeeze.
RegTP skal således afslå at godkende en ændring af detailpriserne, hvorom sagsøgeren har ansøgt, hvis priserne er i strid med artikel 82 EF, bl.a. på grund af et konkurrencebegrænsende prispres.

It must be noted that the various decisions of RegTP to which the applicant refers in support of its case do not include any reference to Article 82 EC.
For det andet bemærkes, at de forskellige af RegTP trufne afgørelser, hvortil sagsøgeren har henvist til støtte for sin argumentation, ikke indeholder nogen henvisning til artikel 82 EF.

First, as far as narrowband connections are concerned(analogue and ISDN lines), the applicant explains that, under German law, all its retail prices had to be examined and approved in advance by RegTP or, before 1998, by the BMPT.
Hvad for det første angår smalbåndtilslutningerne(analoge tilslutninger og ISDN-tilslutninger) har sagsøgeren anført, at dennes detailpriser ifølge den tyske lovgivning alle på forhånd skulle undersøges og godkendes af RegTP eller, før 1998, af BMPT.

The applicant nevertheless maintains that it did not have any responsibility under Article 82 EC, as RegTP had checked the compatibility of its charges with Article 82 EC beforehand.
Sagsøgeren har imidlertid hævdet, at selskabet ikke har noget ansvar i henhold til artikel 82 EF, da RegTP på forhånd kontrollerer, at dets afgifter er forenelige med artikel 82 EF.

It is true that RegTP examined the issue of the margin squeeze in a number of its decisions, particularly those of 8 February 1999, 30 March 2001, 21 December 2001, 11 April 2002 and 29 April 2003.
Det er korrekt, at RegTP i flere af afgørelserne- herunder afgørelserne af 8. februar 1999, 30. marts 2001, 21. december 2001, 11. april 2002 og 29. april 2003- undersøger spørgsmålet om prispres.

By decisions of 9 December 1997 and 23 December 1999 in price cap proceedings, the BMPT and then RegTP initially combined connection and call charges for businesses and for individuals in one basket.
I begyndelsen samlede først BMPT og derpå RegTP ved afgørelser af 9. december 1997 og 23. december 1999 tilslutnings- og samtaleafgifterne for henholdsvis virksomheder og private i én kurv inden for rammerne af price cap-proceduren.

Since November1998 RegTP has been cooperating with the Federal Cartel Office in Germany, asprovided for by law, in an investigation into a case of alleged collusion between T-Mobil, Mannesmannand E-Plus over call termination charges in their respective networks.
I november 1998 iværksatte RegTP i samarbejde med det tyske konkurrencekontor(Bundeskartellamt) en undersøgelse af en formodet hemmelig aftale mellem T-Mobil, Mannesmann og E-Plus vedrørende.

At the hearing the applicant pointed out that, during the period from 1 January 1998 to 31 December 2001, RegTP had to investigate compliance with the price ceilings separately in respect of business and private customers.
Under retsmødet pegede sagsøgeren på, at RegTP i perioden fra den 1. januar 1998 til den 31. december 2001 skulle foretage separat kontrol af, at prislofterne for henholdsvis erhvervskunder og private kunder blev overholdt.

In that respect, it must be observed that, under the second sentence of Paragraph 27(1) and Paragraph 25(1) of the TKG, and Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Charges Order, the applicant's retail prices for access to analogue and ISDN lines had to be approved by RegTP in the context of a price cap system.
Hvad dette angår bemærkes, at sagsøgerens detailpriser for adgang til analoge tilslutninger og ISDN-tilslutninger ifølge§ 27, stk. 1, andet punktum, og§ 25, stk. 1, i TKG samt §§ 4 og 5 i bekendtgørelsen om prisregulering skulle godkendes af RegTP inden for rammerne af en price capordning.

The applicant submits that, by encroaching on the powers of RegTP, the Commission misused its powers and infringed the principles of proportionality, legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations.
Sagsøgeren har hævdet, at Kommissionen ved at gribe ind i RegTP's beføjelser har begået magtfordrejning og tilsidesat principperne om proportionalitet, retssikkerhed og beskyttelse af den berettigede forventning.

In that respect, first, it must be noted that the retail charges for access to analogue lines which applied throughout the period from 1 January 1998 to 31 December 2001 had not been authorised by RegTP, but were based on decisions taken under the legislation in force before the adoption of the TKG.
Hertil bemærkes indledningsvis, at de detailpriser for adgang til analoge tilslutninger, der gjaldt i hele perioden fra den 1. januar 1998 til den 31. december 2001, ikke var blevet godkendt af RegTP, men byggede på afgørelser truffet i henhold til den lovgivning, der gjaldt før vedtagelsen af TKG.

When that first period ended on 31 December 1999, RegTP- by decision of 23 December 1999- essentially maintained the composition of the baskets and lowered the prices by a further 5.6% in the period from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2001 second price cap period.
Da denne første periode sluttede- den 31. december 1999- bibeholdt RegTP ved afgørelse af 23. december 1999 i det væsentlige kurvenes sammensætning og nedsatte priserne med 5,6% i perioden fra den 1. januar 2000 til den 31. december 2001 anden price cap-periode.

In view of the cap imposed by the decision of the BMPT of 17 December 1997, the applicant had to reduce the aggregate price for each of the two baskets by 4.3% in the period from 1 January 1998 to 31 December 1999 and, following the decision of RegTP of 23 December 1999, by 5.6% in the period from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2001.
På grund af det loft, der var fastsat i BMPT's afgørelse af 17. december 1997, måtte sagsøgeren nedsætte den samlede pris for begge kurve med 4,3% i perioden fra den 1. januar 1998 til den 31. december 1999, og som følge af RegTP's afgørelse af 23. december 1999 med 5,6% i perioden fra den 1. januar 2000 til den 31. december 2001.

In addition, RegTP's statement that‘[c]ompetitors are not so prejudiced with regard to their competitive opportunities in the local network by the slight difference between retail and wholesale prices as to make it economically impossible for them to enter the market successfully or even to remain in the market'(decision of RegTP of 29 April 2003) does not imply that the applicant's pricing practices do not distort competition within the meaning of Article 82 EC.
Endvidere indebærer RegTP's udtalelse om, at»den ringe forskel mellem detailpriserne og engrospriserne[ikke påvirker] konkurrenternes muligheder for at konkurrere inden for abonnentnettet i en sådan grad, at de ikke har økonomisk mulighed for med held at optage virksomhed på markedet eller forblive herpå«(RegTP's afgørelse af 29.4.2003), ikke, at sagsøgerens afgifter ikke fordrejer konkurrencen som omhandlet i artikel 82 EF.

Second, as regards retail prices for ISDN lines, it is undisputed that, following the applicant's application, RegTP authorised a reduction in the basic monthly charges by decision of 16 February 2000 recital 40 to the contested decision.
Dernæst er det for så vidt angår detailpriserne for ISDN-tilslutninger ubestridt, at RegTP ved afgørelse af 16. februar 2000 godkendte en nedsættelse af månedsafgifterne efter ansøgning fra sagsøgeren betragtning 40 til den anfægtede beslutning.